i'm remembering that thread i made awhile back about consensus. as much as people look down on the idea, consensus on typings is the closest thing anybody has to an "objective" standard. (this isn't to say i believe "consensus is always right" or any nonsense like that.)
the other way people try for objectivity is to compare their data and interpretations to the writings of some other "official" socionist like aushra or something, but i don't really buy that because two different people can use the same writings to justify completely different typings because their interpretation of the writings, the person, and the behavior are so completely different, not to mention its mostly garbled, translated russian.
i don't think socionics "exists" and i'm usually skeptical of anybody who treats it like it does, for several reasons. unfortunately those people seem to often be taken more seriously since they speak with more authority and are more confident in their rhetoric. i do get frustrated and i wish people who believed in it would acknowledge that it is in fact a
belief and they're not superior to astrology disciples or scientologists or anything. its also frustrating when people take socionics so much for granted that they expect certain behavior from you, or worse, frame anything you do or say within the context of preassigned socionical motivations because they value their belief more than they value the fact that you're an independent human being.
socionics is some Ti shit and trying to process it with Te you end up with these problems